Posted on 01/23/2011 5:12:54 AM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas
Did Martin Luther Act Infallibly in Defining What Books Belong in the Bible?
If Luther did not act infallibly:
- How can Protestants be certain that they have an infallible collection of Books in Holy Scripture?
- How can the Bible be the sole rule of faith, if no one knows with certainty which books belong in the Bible?
If Luther acted infallibly:
- How do you know?
I'll believe Jesus.
"he Nicene Creed is evidence of what the Church has taught for 2,000 years"
Interesting, since the Nicene Creed was written in the 4th century AD.
I did not use the word laity, I used the word Catholics, which includes clergy and laity, both of whom have become more vociferous in their demands.
What I am saying is that the calls are coming from within the Church itself as more and more see and understand the Church through the educated eyes. It isn’t as if everyone in the pews and every member of the clergy knew about these abusive priests.
I used the word static in a previous post in saying what the Church is not. The word I should have used is stagnant.
The Church is a living thing and is ever in a state of perfecting her members. She is not stagnant and must be ever watchful. That many of her members have been deceived into believing they can support and vote for heretical and unrepentant and scandalous and sinful politicians just means that her work is not complete.
I imagine were it complete, that would mean that Jesus has come back in His glory.
Ghandi didn’t become a Christian, which means he found no sect worthy of joining.
Who did? God.
And since the Church wouldn’t allow the common person to learn latin it made it a tad difficult.
Sorry, Tommy, but you are full of it!
I ask all on the religion forum to join in on prayers for you, regardless of our difference of opinions, I believe a majority would pray for your salvation.
Sadly it does not sound like you are open to that...yet.
God Bless
It is circular because of the many claims of guidance by the Holy Spirit which has resulted in a myriad of interpretations of Scripture, the nature of Jesus, the nature of faith and the nature of salvation and how one is saved.
To claim only the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as having revealed truth, is to make a claim that one cannot back up with anything, even Scripture since so there is so much discordance within the interpretation of the simplest Bible verses.
IOW, some say Scripture alone, some say predestination, some tout the Rapture and Tribulation, others dispute it, so with the very same Scripture the case is made by a myriad and very differing number of sects for their truth, all claiming inspiration by the Holy Spirit as their proof.
Is it the Holy Spirit which is schizophrenic then?
When Martin Luther translated the Bible in German, he included all the books of the Catholic church.
Martin Luther was a Catholic, he never wanted to leave the church, he merely wanted to rid it of the corruption and false teachings and consequently the Catholic church excommunicated him for this.
You did not specify in that post. Here you did.
And yet so many post in these forums sure that their interpretation is the correct one and condemning the Catholic church for hers.
So, which is it? In two diametrically opposed understandings, one must be right and one wrong. Who decides? The Holy Spirit? Yet both claim him as their inspiration.
More circular argument without a scintilla of logic.
Whatever church you belong to, or none, or whatever faith you have, or none, OF COURSE you believe it is the one true faith. Who adheres to a belief system he does not believe is true?
Of course, true believers acknowledge that what they believe they believe by faith. And rational believers have no reason to attack other faiths, even though they may believe those faiths are wrong.
“Is it the Holy Spirit which is schizophrenic then?”
No, but then, we men aren’t perfect, are we?
And that is why it is important to rely on scripture. Those who follow man (or men) drift without an anchor, going further and further away. Those who rely on scripture are constrained by it, and each generation has the same anchor.
No one can pull Purgatory out of scripture, but the Catholic Church invented it...and then Indulgences followed. Had it stuck to scripture, they wouldn’t have drifted as far as Purgatory.
The disputes between Bible-believing Protestants are minor compared to the disputes between the Pope and the Bible.
That is why Peter - remember him - told us “we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts...But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.”
Purgatory and Indulgences deny the Master and the sacrifice on Calvary.
I just found it interesting that someone would question the Son of Gods knowledge of scripture.
Valid point, and the underlying issue is how authority is established. While God can appoint authority to which obedience is conditionally commanded, (Dt. 17; Mt. 23:2) God made it manifest that such were not infallible and worthy of implicit assent, (Mk. 7:6-13) but which Rome claims and fosters. But what really establishes spiritual authority is a spiritual matter.
In the Bible God supernaturally confirmed His reality to men like Abraham, and likewise He confirmed the faith and morality of those who believed Him, with men like Moses being commanded to write revelation, and the testimony and writings of such became the authority by which later persons and further claims would be examined by and established, as a continuing principle. (Is. 8:20; Mt. 22:29-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:39,42; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Heb. 1, etc.) with God giving attestation to them, directly or indirectly, including by believers realizing things which corresponded to the claims of Scripture, which in turn confirmed the Divine authority of the Scriptures.
Thus when Jesus authority was challenged, or in establishing it and His teaching, He invoked the work of non-ordained (by men) John the Baptist, (Mk. 11:28-30) and the Scriptures and His miraculous works. (Mt. 22:42-45; Jn. 5:33-36,39; Lk. 24:27,44) And both John and the Lord censored those who supposed formal decent and pedigree made them children of Abraham, whom God could raise up from stones. (Mt. 3:9; Jn. 8:39,44)
In like manner the apostles invoked the Scriptures and showed their fruit and Divine attestation which established their authority, (Acts 10:37-43; 17:2; 28:23; Rm. 1:2; 15:19; 2Cor. 6:1-10; 12:12) by “manifestation of truth” persuading souls. (2Cor. 4:2) And upon this basis is spiritual authority of men and truth established, in proportion to its claims, versus pedigree or high sounding claims. (cf. 1Cor. 4:18-21)
And there again the disagreements which cannot be addressed with any certainty for I can tell you, as the Church does that there is nothing the Church holds which contradicts Scripture or Tradition.
But, a protestant cannot accept that some things are explicit and some implicit. The revealed Word of God is so profound that to constrain it to just the surface is to try to constrain the ocean.
As I said earlier, to accept its authority in one matter, especially one so important to protestantism, and then reject everything else is mind bending.
The Catholic church is not even unified in its interpretation of Scripture and has not been for its entire history.
Catholics are in no position to cast stones in that area.
Even if the Catholic church could demonstrate some sort of unity in its interpretation, it does not logically follow that it is the correct interpretation.
Wide is the way that leads to destruction. They could be wrong all together. Other cults are.
Good advise for all to heed!
What a sad commentary on the church which claims to be the one true church of Christ on the earth and which claims that salvation is through it alone.
There are differences of opinion even between the Latin rite and the EO, as far as the papacy and stuff about Mary.
It is disingenuous to criticize and condemn non-Catholic for the very thing that exists within the Catholic church itself.
Catholics like to present to the world a united front, but when you look behind the curtain, it’s anything but.....
So when Paul says for instance, in Corinthians,
“I urge you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say,
and that there be no divisions among you,
but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.”
he was not speaking to them to be united in faith and beliefs?
And if he were, does that not imply that there is a central and universal truth to which he wished all would adhere?
Church is always used singularly, for the church was to be as one. One mind, one faith, one baptism. Just as Jesus prayed for it to be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.